Does ANALOG REALLY SOUND BETTER?

[@codgerfiasco]

Thank you so much! First thing.. I'm glad you took my original comment as positive. I didn't mean for my original skepticism to come off as aggressive. I think this is a valid line of enquiry and I am happy you think so too. Not going to lie, I was hoping for cheap plugins to match the hardware because I can afford one and not the other. I think the top sounded a bit more 3d on the hardware? Perhaps not enough of a difference to keep me up at night though. It's difficult with youtube compression. I'm guessing the additional harmonics play a role. I both stand corrected and feel slightly vindicated. Bravo x

[@codgerfiasco]

By the way I think your point that no one would use pro-q in this way (and would therefore not achieve the same curve) was an excellent observation.

[@Whiteseastudio]

Thanks a lot for the initial comment, I didn’t see it as aggressive, as I’m saying in the video. KZbin compression makes this comparison, unfortunately, a lot more difficult.

[@GingerDrums]

KZbin sounds surprisingly good. Do your own test, upload and download a sine sweep

[@DarkTrapStudio]

@@GingerDrums Yes I agree, Side are ugly when listening solo but in context Its not apprent, like 320bps MP3

[@GingerDrums]

@@DarkTrapStudio it's pretty damn linear. It's essentially a myth that KZbin has a sound, according to my tests it nulls very well, certainly not audible in blind test. Yes I'd compare to 320 mp3 (most people can't even hear 240kbps mp3 double blind).

[@griffingibson4389]

I think what makes analog sound good is the same thing that makes a grand piano sound good. The waves going through the tube almost organize themselves through sympathetic resonance, making the higher frequencies fall in line with each consecutive lower frequency, like a raft riding over the peaks and troughs on an ocean wave.

[@sterilone8998]

this is my favourite voodoo description . you are a true poet ! :)

[@jontshyza]

Are was just about to type this then I seen your comment

[@PurpleMusicProductions]

As a student of the piano I concur. Very well said.

[@infojunkie4989]

Lets face it the Empress looks WAY cooler, and will be much more fun to use and immediate. Having been ‘in the box’ for the past 10-15 years I’m going back out in a huge way. Just because I can. We live in an amazing time for music equipment. We have so much choice, can have the absolute best of both worlds, digital for cost effectiveness and convenience, analogue for a little added warmth and tactile immediacy, hybrid for infinite choices with little limitation. Why do we have to pick just one when we can have them all! I’ve ordered an Empress, already have full Fab bundle. It is amazing…. But hell moving a mouse around is so boring and soulless! Have fun folks and enjoy whatever you choose to use.

[@marloband7238]

"But hell moving a mouse around is so boring and soulless!" I've seen people say that a lot and am surprised more aren't using midi controllers. I rarely touch my mouse when EQing.

[@infojunkie4989]

@@marloband7238 i have a UF8 and IC1 and they are a big step up, but still one knob per function is so easier. (Assuming you don’t have to switch between mixes 5 times a day, or recall a mix 6 months later) of course. So i get both arguments.

[@SamHocking]

I think a lot of the pro engineer / audio scene is more about aesthetics and simply ownership and wealth/success display to a large extent. I think there's a lot to be said for entering a studio full of hardware and lights and cables though than just a laptop and speakers for the creative atmosphere, the setting of the mood to enter the creative mindset. It's a lot easier to do that from a computer screen in a studio full of hardware, than a blank room with two speakers and a computer and mouse.

[@infojunkie4989]

@@SamHocking also of you’re in the creative zone it os rather easier to be spontaneous and collaborative with real gear than a Daw. But I appreciate that’s likely a niche use case: more than one person ‘playing’ the EQs, Sat/filter boxes and compressor to see what magic happens of what beaks. Not sure if it has much to do displays of affluence. Far easier to park a Ferrari outside the studio if that’s you’re bag It is all horseshit anyway. When the Sun burns out if won’t matter what Eq was used. Nobody will hear it. 🤣🤣 But what’s really cool about audio - whether pro not - is that it does not have to be binary. Not like Mac vs PC, iPhone vs Galaxy, It does not have to be either or and tribal. There’s a harmonious middle ground where bliss and joy exists….. The Hybrid Workflow! 🤣

[@PurpleMusicProductions]

I agree with hybrid with a heavier leaning towards hardware.

[@LightWthoutTheStatic]

It seems like plugindoctor would be a perfect plugin for actually comparing the exact EQ curves between software and hardware. Just did it for the first time this past week between the BX SSL4k E plugin and a DIY 4KE Black knob 500 series module clone and it made it so easy to match the hardware and software curves together. Also cool to really hear such a precise A/B of analog and software against each other from the daw.

[@SergioFrias]

exactly my thought !

[@jorgemartinez42069]

What are your thoughts on the comparison between the hardware and plugin version?

[@Friedeggonheadchan]

You should've matched against Pro-Q in Natural Phase mode, which has equivalent phase response with analog EQs. It's practically impossible to hear this slight difference in the top end phase response by ear, but it will show up as significant difference when nulling. (This applies to other digital EQs too, except many don't offer such a mode at all.)

[@this_is_jmdub]

who cares if you can't hear it

[@Friedeggonheadchan]

@@this_is_jmdub For the sake of comparison you should, because otherwise the null test results are flawed and unreliable.

[@mikhailkhromov464]

@@this_is_jmdub The frequency response of IIR filters begins to differ a lot from analog as the frequency increases (it's just math). You can avoid this by increasing the sampling frequency or using more filters to compensate the difference. Noone can hear this only because different doesn't mean bad, who cares what type of filter is used if it sounds good?

[@vegettoblue8705]

@@this_is_jmdub sound waves can also be heard by ears , ears convert them . they travel allover your body brain etc and envoirment no matter you have ears or not

[@pablodelpozo8930]

The proQ has a natural phase setting at the bottom of the UI which from what I remember it is quite different from the zero latency in terms of phase shift but personally I think at the end these are just tools, I’ve heard some terrible sound music with really nice analog gear and also the opposite is true too and with digital also that applies too.

[@UnfortunatelyTheHunger]

Yeah, I think there's this widespread myth that digital gear not only makes music "sound worse", but even drives musicians to "make worse music"

[@RambowMusik]

When i found the switch, for me the difference of "zero Latency" vs "Natural phase" was almost night and esspecially for the low end. I think with it it would be way closer to the empress.

[@americanantagon1st]

I enjoyed this video, as I've been doing many comparisons vs my hardware and plugins, for many years. Personally, Plugin Doctor would've been the best option to get the eqs to match, because you can see both (hardware and software) eq curves at the same time. These videos will never get old, even as software gets better and closer to physical gear.

Similarly, I don't know fully but I think analog gear is literally organic and works with non-linearity. That's why they response dynamically, to dynamic source. I believe that we human is animal and we find non-perfection "pleasing" and "musical".

[@soundrevoltstudio4448]

An EQ doesn't respond dynamically to a dynamic source as it is a static processor (unless it is a dynamic EQ). If you measure analog gear, you'll see that it is much more precise as a lot of people try to make you believe. The non-linearities are coming from distortion/saturation of certain components, which have a certain transient softening effect, which is not present in the fabfilter EQ. It would have been nice, to measure the distortion of the empress as well and try to recreate it. We'd probably see a much closer match and people would probably really struggle in a blind test.

[@asteroidmrecords]

I look at it like every plugin and piece of outboard gear is just another paintbrush in your sonic palette, none better than all and each good in their own respective right. The more you have, the more exponential creative options you have to help define sounds to your taste. I'm also glad this shows the difference, I'm always a fan of more options personally.

[@mollyoko]

the point being that plugins are great when they offer us something analog cannot do (very few plugins actually) but when they are just emulations of analog gear, they are always inferior.

[@asteroidmrecords]

@@mollyoko I just don't believe in things like "this will always be better" when it comes to audio

[@mollyoko]

@@asteroidmrecords the proof is in the listening.Theres a reason why hi quality productions still use analog consoles and outboard gear. Accumulation of ringing/phasing/distortion etc with multiple plugins thins out productions.

[@asteroidmrecords]

@@mollyoko maybe in 2004, as far as these days there is no issue with plugins "thinning out the mix" especially when using proper sampling rate. Every hi quality production you hear now days has tons of plugins on it. I appreciate your opinions but you're pretty far off base with how music is actually produced nowadays. We have everything drop API to Neve preamps, a huge mic locker different compressors, limiters etc, but there isn't anything on the analog world that can do something like eventides split EQ plugin does, it just doesn't exist. Outboard gear is nice to have just as plugins are nice to have. Like I keep saying, the combination of both is better than either. The only real rule in audio production is "if it sounds good, it is good!"

[@mollyoko]

@@asteroidmrecords I use an api and burl, cranesong, atc, split eq, fab filter etc. I have an isolated tuned control room. I can hear the differences that stacked plugins make to my productions and mixes. Like I said, I use plugins where they can be creative and do things I can't do with analog. If you can't hear the differences maybe you should improve your monitoring.

[@soundrevoltstudio4448]

Nulling a digital signal with another one, which went through a converter is not possible by simply flipping the polarity. One reason is because sample shifts can happen in subsample ranges when going throug a converter (given you tried to match them by aligning them manually). Phase shifting is definitely less of a problem here compared to that. In order to compare these two, it would be better to make an analog roundtrip with the ProQ as well and compare that with the empress. That way the effect of the converter can be negated (even if it might not be that big, but still, some converters have a small impact on the transients as well).

[@G_handle]

A) try Pro-Q in "Natural Phase" mode B) I always assumed that the "match EQ" in a bunch of plugins are essentially Null Testing internally to the lowest residual signal. They won't perfectly match an Analog piece of gear. But 2 brand new pieces of the same analog gear won't perfectly Null either. There's an Acceptable Tolerance that should be the goal. C) did you measure THD on the analog gear? Might that effect the results?

[@saricubra2867]

You have to measure phase.

[@jorgedejesustejedavaldez5283]

For a mix and mastering engenniers the difference between them is like Day and Night. It's not just about the curves, is about the texture that the hardware adds to the signal.

[@JameelDLS]

Love your channel bro. Your reviews are unbiased

[@genejas]

Imho using analog eqs is mostly a workflow thing, to get a certain sound in seconds instead of minutes. If you're doing mostly hobby projects, they're probably not worth it (but still fun). If you're a pro, and your time is worth a lot of money, they can be very helpful. Also, the dropoff in the high end is not only because of your convertors, but also because iirc a pultec attenuates a little bit even with the attenuation at 0.

[@J77199]

I'm pretty sure most pros would disagree entirely considering graphic eqs are much easier and faster to dial in than non graphic ones, but even if you prefer stepped eqs like a pultec for example, most still reach for plugins because recalls on analog gear at this point, make it nearly worthless to use outboard gear on their level unless there's a sound they really really want, or it's a master bus, or drum bus for color that just never changes. Outboard gear is way more time consuming Also UAD Pultecs are known to be 1 to 1 with the hardware, they will actually null and in some cases even sound better than older hardware units. There are some great videos like Paul Thirds showing thay they are identical

[@TomislavRupic]

what you hear that is different between Empress and ProQ is that Empress also adds saturation and since its analog and stereo, small difference between L and R give it some more "wideness"... software is great if you need clean sound but if you need saturation/distortion/character/randomness analog is still irreplaceable

[@GaragebandandBeyond]

I'd say the guy who left the comment was right. In my studio there wasn't a significant difference. A difference yes, but it was minor and only engineers could hear it. My girlfriend thought I was crazy when I said "You don't hear a difference at all?" She's a great example of an average listener. The Auto Matched EQ was definitely the closest. Great work as always my friend!

[@MaxCarola]

Anyway, this is an interesting test that confirm my choice of going ITB. In the video is fairly evident from the analyser that there are artifacts when matching. But is a fair test and I am impressed by the ProQ 😛 I am ITB since ProTools 4 and never regret it.

[@tkelong3569]

The word ‘better’ is rife with subjectivity. Your idea of ‘better’ is just as valid as mine, and vicea-versa. So you get to decide relative to the track you’re working on if it’s better.

[@antiphonesjunk]

To my ears the hardware is adding another element which is somewhere between compression and saturation. With the hardware I can hear the low-level information (like reverb) moving to the timing of the music's dynamics. Transients are also softened in the hardware version. I'm not hearing this with the Pro Q. I've always thought that one of the things good hardware does is make low level things move in a subtle way. You can hear that really clearly here. Not all hardware does this, which is why some hardware to my ears doesn't sound particularly great. Whereas some does sound really good and I think this might be why. No reason why you couldn't do this with software though I think if you put your mind to it.

[@moonstrobe]

Bet no actual consumer can tell a difference. It would be fun to see you and a few other folks try and identify the hardware/plugs in a true blind test, if such a thing is possible.

[@h4ndrix]

Its always small differences when it comes to analog vs digital. But the small fidelity differences in a 20+ tracked projects makes a big difference in the final mix.

[@Audiojunkk]

Sick video! What is that analysis plug in btw?

[@LaMusicaEsTuDios]

For me the most important, if I can hear the $$$ difference... Then, if the difference in sound and $$$ will effect the "album" sales.... In most cases, not. Sad reality mostly ignored by artists. If you can afford it, do it. If it's a hobby about sound, do it. But if you're a good songwriter, musician with a limited budget and trying to make a living... Spend the money on publicity instead... Until you make it... and can afford slightly better sound for crazy money. And strong enough not to get lost in gear instead of melodies, harmonies, rhythms and inspiration, experiences to share or write about. May the 4th be with us.

[@Shinson_music]

on my system i couldn't hear any difference after you fully adjusted the curves on the pro Q 3. very interesting video

[@LondonSteveLee]

Get your ears cleaned and/or a better system - there was a massive difference - the HW version had loads of saturation not present in ProQ.

[@ASJerrell]

That opposite pan + stereo analyzer trick for matching the curves was so efficient

[@voyageDnB1]

I was hoping Pro Q would have been updated by now with the inclusion of vintage curve modes 😃 coincidentally -

[@vigilantestylez]

Kirchoff EQ is basically that. Might want to check that out.

[@BennyFade]

Very interesting video. Like the your approach how you analyse stuff, very technical, which I think we all like. I’m looking into getting my first outboard gear and some of your videos really helped me do decide. Keep going the nice work. Greetings from Germany

[@johnbach2380]

I don’t know about everyone else… all those eq sounds could be more than useable in the mix. It sounded fine. Haha.

[@florisbackx1744]

To me the biggest difference is dynamics, the pro Q is fully linear and the filters react exactly the same no mater the gain level or low end energy it needs to proces. The Empress clearly has shifting bands and amounts of filtering depending on how hard the tubes are working. This was most obvious in the more quiet part of the song, where all of a sudden it brightened up a lot compared to the Pro Q.

[@STAR0SS]

Why the null test is interesting, I would be curious to see how many people could hear a difference in a blind test and which they would prefer.

[@saricubra2867]

There are a lot of 1176 plugins out there and they do sound like a real life 1176 on hardware, the problem is your reference point. Even hardware varies, each real 1176 sounds slightly different. What you get with digital is consistency and predictability.

[@joruffin]

Apart from the phase settings that others have pointed out, it sounds to me like the hardware unit adds a little bit of compression in the bass that pro-q doesn't. This wouldn't really be surprising as analog is non-linear by nature and that's the sort of thing circuitry just does. I think you could replicate it even better with more plugins, but part of the goodness of analog (and more specialized digital plugins) is the all-in-one package of the sound you're looking for.

[@dmitryurbanovich4748]

That's probably also the reason of identical sine/square wave tests, but difference in actual practice. Those tests only valid for true LTI systems and analog circuits are neither linear nor time-invariant.

[@Mansardian]

to each his own workflow. I use Bertom EQ curve analyzer to match the curve as exactly as possible, I mean like 0.1 - 0.2 db accurate. Of course I don't know how accurate you were behind the curtain (for such things I usually don't trust approximations by automatic processes) but I wonder if the audible difference is worth the 2000,- Would be cool if you could provide the white noise rendered, the Empress track rendered and we try if we can null it. I mean, if a bigger community comes to the same conclusion...we can happily lean back and know for sure. 🙂

[@pointlessconfused7598]

Talking in general about emulations: Analogue gear would be affected by power fluctuations in the grid. So which powergrid a console is hooked into and what the wiring in the building is like would have an effect.

[@Sheeninthebox]

what's the name of the plug-in you use to analyze the frequency curve of the equalizer at 08:11 Thanks in advance ❤

[@vigilantestylez]

Do you have plugin doctor, because I think you can measure your hardware with plugin doctor, then try to match the curves and the saturation of the hardware to ProQ3 and Saturn?

[@hammondjones9484]

Love your channel, What is the analysis tool you are using?

[@brainwasher3742]

In response to the comments talking about using the ‘natural’ setting. Don’t think that would null any better, it would have completely different phase shift compared to the analog empress EQ

[@saricubra2867]

Natural phase mode removes cramping for the high frequencies.

[@brainwasher3742]

@@saricubra2867 not true. ProQ3 does not cramp on any of the phase processing modes.

[@convolutionsounds4431]

I'm wondering if the difference has less to do with overall added harmonics, and more to do with how harmonics are generated in response to transients and micro-transients. I've often noticed (and did notice with this example), that analog gear tends to not only make things feel warmer, but also more present. It has a way of bringing out sounds, even when certain things are cut. I noticed here the kick felt slightly more present, even slightly compressed. I think this could apply the feeling of "air" which is maybe quick transients in the high end getting harmonic boosts due to a quirk of analog processing? Maybe those tone generating components have a transient response that's just not getting captured by sweeping a sine wave through them and seeing how they react. There's also just so many differences in analog gear, even from unit to unit, depending on age, model, any number of factors. Even in newer models, I wonder how variable these units really are, and is that variability/randomness a factor in why they seem new and unique and special to us? Or are these component parts even so unreliable that we need to start introducing randomness at the sample level, and see where that gets us? I also often ask myself... If we started with digital, and then analog came later... Would we like digital better? I guess it's more of a philosophical question, but I do have to wonder. As we get closer and closer to truly indistinguishable plugins, does it matter? Is a song really benefitting from a full analog mix vs. a digital mix if most people are gonna listen to it on an Echo or AirPods? I know we want to do our best work, but when it comes down to it, is hardware actually necessary for that?

[@GTChris]

Okay what I will say has nothing to do with audio quality, you basically said everything that I was thinking and more. What I do want to add to the choice regarding getting gear vs a plugin. Hardware you can always resell, most plugins with a few exceptions, you can't re-sell if at some point you found something else or over time notice that you don't use it. I think that's a valuable reason not many people consider when making a hardware vs software decision.

[@qlyde]

Empress vs Pro Q - Close, but the warmth and saturation are very different on the kick and low end. Empress vs Pro Q Match - Even Closer, but you'd need the analog unit to auto match anyways, and the saturation is still not there. Empress vs UAD - Similar Vibe, UAD has a thicker low end but less defined, modelled saturation is close, but there's much more clarity on the Empress. Analog Pultec vs UAD Pultec would be a very close comparison. There's always going to be the argument that plugins can get the job done without any need for analog gear, and I agree, an experienced & talented engineer can make an amazing mix in the box, BUT the value that Analog brings is a lot more than sound. You get the job done faster and easier, instead of using EQ and Saturation in the box you can just use a Tube EQ. Hands on workflow is faster as well, and you really get to know the units you own, you start to build a formula & habits for your mixes, making you even faster over time. And maybe the most important thing is that gear is INSPIRING, it gives you pride and makes you want to work with it. When you go into a studio that's all in the box, with just a laptop, speakers & interface, it's fine, but it's not inspiring, you can get the job done if you know what you're doing of course. But it's a completely different feeling walking into a studio with analog outboard gear, rack effects, tape machines, synths, etc. It creates an environment of inspiration and you can't help yourself from wanting to create and use the toys/tools in front of you. Hybrid is the way to go in 2023, best of both worlds, and even if plugins become 1:1 as good as Analog in 10 years I will still have Hardware just because of the hands on workflow and inspiration I get from it.

[@IconicPhotonic]

I don't think you showed this, but I'm assuming you did some manual latency compensation by adjusting the timing of the recorded hardware signal? I would guess a good amount of the differences would be attributed to the tube amp stages adding some harmonics. As you know, this could be tested by feeding in a sinewave and viewing the frequency response... or automatically using the new hardware modes on PluginDoctor 2 I think :) Thanks for the testing!

[@rok_koritnik]

I hope you're aware that the warmth of Empress doesn't necessarily come from the curves but from the harmonic distortion which the ProQ lacks. Perhaps a better digital EQ to compare with Empress would be TDR Nova (there is a free version with 4 bands), which is a parallel EQ, like the Empress, so the phase shift would be more similar. Nova features a subtle saturation in individual bands in +modes, but imho the best would be to use it clean and add a separate saturation stage after it, but you'd need to first analyze the harmonics added by the Empress's make-up gain circuit in order to know what kind of saturation we're talking about here. Pultec curves are really nothing that can't be achieved with a digital eq. The other problem is that many Pultec-style EQs have a fixed hi-pass filter at around 20Hz in order to prevent the shelf boost to overly boost the extreme subs. A visit to Plugin Doctor would probably reveal this and imho using PD would be better than ProQ's auto-match and you also wouldn't have to guess where the curves and boosts match. Different Pultec re-creations have different amount of boost on same positions and this is the pitfall of most Pultec comparissons.

[@TianpeiWang]

One big reason why they never null is analog always have THD and the THD behaviour is so complex which is kinda impossible to mimic. The analog gears I have they always have slightly different amount of THD on each frequency and different frequencies may interact with each other. When it comes to digital its always 'fixed'.

[@atta1798]

There is a difference in "better" that is directly proportional to the Mixer/Mastering person's Music backgorund. ear maturity, experience and the knowledge of Science audio engineering. Then, the answer is really simple.....what sound holds the the closest to the original sound....so that is the answer. I do like the presenters style and approach. From there you keep on creating... 🙂

[@mashoy78]

Even on my phone i can hear easily that hardware has something extra micro articulation which sounds bit more alive. But it doesn't mean that it is better. Probably on main elements in the mix it could make some difference but maybe with some little saturation and minimal transient enhancement it would sound indistinguishable from the hardware? Who knows?

[@PeterPan-lu7cw]

Listening on phone Matched curved comparison works pretty cool In my opinion the Warmth and smoothness of the empress comes through very clear anyway

[@bontempo1271]

I echo what others have said, it's easier and accurate to use either Bertom EQ analyser or PluginDoctor to match them, and i would try Crave EQ in Analog Phase mode to see if that gets closer to the hardware. That may possibly present something similar in terms of phase, and what i like about it is that it doesn't ruin the stereo imaging nor smear transients. But of course, it's doesn't add any harmonics, so any distortion added by the hardware won't be replicated. After rigorous testing, even the best Pultec emulations software has to offer, did not come near the pillowy low end girth that a pair of lowly Klark Teknik Pultec modded clones added. And what beat UAD and Acustica was the old Focusrite Liquidmix, it emulates harmonics also. Aside from the mixbus, i'm happy to use a top digital eq, software eq at least comes closer to hardware than plugin compressors do.

[@TrappoLone]

I can hear the kick sound bigger and warmer on the empress even on a 30€ bluetooth speaker :)

[@josephmcgregor6959]

Very timely video. I have an empress and it should arrive soon.

[@talenwaver]

Analog just seems to make things sound more present while plugins put them behind a thin screen. It's like having a little bit of blurred vision but not realizing it until you suddenly put on glasses.

[@KordTaylor]

Agreed about testing with a more extreme setting. General thought is always that analog is more forgiving and the digital with get harsh.

[@rogercabo5545]

That's the ghost and magic in the analog machine! And you can't deny it!

[@GrumpyGr3g]

I don't want to be mean, but i do not like people saying "I can do the same with ProQ3". Sure it is an incredible eq, you can do soooo many things in, you can save preset of very closed matched curves from analog if you spend time on doing it, but in practice, the workflow of an analog equipment is sooo different, even for small details. In the end, some like digital sound, some like analog sound! And that also is something very personal. There are no better, it's all different according to tastes. I always thought it is a matter of taste and budget. You want to make yourself happy and can afford such an eq ? Do it! You can't get one? Stop arguing and go on, you'll find better for your use. Anyway, I should leave my beer alone, great video! Thanks for sharing these experience everyone can recreate with its own stuff.

[@codgerfiasco]

I was the original commenter and I don't think anything you just said is mean. It makes total sense. Enjoy your gear.

[@saricubra2867]

Pro Q3 in natural phase mode removes cramping amd improves the EQ on the high frequency, Pro Q3 is a perfectly clean EQ. Volcano 3 is more analog than Pro Q3, it adds non-linearity or subtle distortion, you can change the filter type as well. I'm using it because it's way more flexible than a Pultec and way cheaper.

[@radiofaber]

What you think in trying to match the curve with the Q Clone from Waves? Do you think it will match better?

[@enzimacimino]

Hi from Italy! I think a simple thing: to get the right sound in analog world, You need 2 bands (with simultaneous cut/boost, ok I know). with the ProQ you have a very similar result, it's true...but auto-match process need almost 20 bands! and maybe you need to set natural phase, oversampling, latency... I think that this difference brings to think that digital can do a lot of things, but analog is waaaaay quick and efficient! the best is to get right result without wasting time and energy, so choose right processor (digital or analog) after this video will be simpler than before

[@henrikpetersson3463]

The gain boost on the Pultec is there because that's how the original hardware works. UA take great pride in mimicking those small quirks of the hardware they emulate. Like it or not.

[@kosmikmusa]

4:14 What analyzer are you using?

[@kiseki490]

Great compare! To POV i think you are the distortion harmonics, and the mono left/right not really 100% mono on analog. But, the most important for me is the usage. I use a plugin or an analog because I have what i what easier. The musicality is the first priority for us yep?

[@Jonas-jq5xl]

To me the transients sounds duller on the plug ins. Like it does indeed boost and cut the same frequenzies, but in a dead way. Hardware seems to affect the sample in a more musical way. Hard to explain, but the hardware sounds much nicer in my opinion.

[@yona9798]

You could also measure the empresses response using REW or something similar to more closely match the eq curves. That would also allow for having a look at THD, IR, etc. I strongly believe that a lot of the time when people say that analogue gear has a certain "magic" to it they still just mean a combination of measurable differences and describe it like that for a lack of technical knowledge. Would be quite interesting to see how analogue effects not just the FR.

[@MRboomchongo]

I hear the primary difference giving analog that extra 15% is the saturation in the high end stereo field. It’s a particular dark reactiveness on the attack. Plug-in manufacturers over obsess about their plug-ins sounding “analog” so they over saturate the gain. In reality analog gear engineers aim to keep their sound as clean as possible so the build up of noise over multiple tracks doesn’t increase the noise floor too much.

[@Auldhelm]

Great Video! They sounded both good but different - I preferred the Pro Q TBH

[@AL_EKs]

Of course there's a difference - analog tone is the result of interactions on an atomic/quantum level while the software is a mathematical estimation of said effects.

[@Bthelick]

why would you not measure the hammerstien harmonics curve also? surely that's the other half the signal.

[@lunairysproducciones]

Over here fans of the NoiseAsh "Rule Tec", the closest thing to the vintage Pultec that we have tried, cheers Wytse.

[@musiccreation1198]

Very interesting. Thanks for doing this test. While I preferred the hardware, it's more evidence (to me) that investing in hardware EQs does not provide the same ROI (sound quality improvement over plugins ) that investing in hardware compressors and pres provide versus plugins. UA EQP, Acustica EQs, Kirchhoff, ProQ3...they're really good. Yet, I'm still getting a pair of Audioscape EQPs later this year ;)

[@MixedByDotRob]

Cool video! It would be interesting to also hear a version with the ProQ + your converters against the Empress + your converters. IMHO you already get a lot of analogue vibe by running through the converters alone.😃

[@pyratellamarecordingstudio1062]

Yup. This is the error most comparisons make

[@ignacedhont9816]

Ahaha "analogue vibe", do some testing yourself before you comment. Nobody can hear a single pass in practise.. you would even struggle to hear five passes ADDA! Things like aliasing play a far more important role in the difference between software and hardware.

[@emilbirkedal8430]

Thx for another great video! - im looking for an analog EQ for my mixbus - can you recommend one - in the 1500-2000 Euros-class. Thx again!

[@GrumpyGr3g]

Elysia does great, rack and 500 series, and so does Wes if you run 500series :)

[@iadaslan1492]

Tegeler Audio EQP-1. Best mixbus polish in that price range. I've seen used units for around 1700,-

[@OffiicialSteff]

Hey man, love ur videoes! Got a question for you, im releasing a song.. a pretty bass heavy tech house song, and im struggleing a bit to mix/master the song with the vocals. The vocal should be prominent in the mix, but if i use a MB or a Dynamic EQ on the Instrument stem when the vocal is playing, i feel like the sound looses all the character it has. It just becomes a sub heavy dunky tune, with no hi-bass basically. Any tips on what i could go about trying? Also, im using soothe2 to sidechain the intruments. I have it set to flat so it basically takes everything (a tiny bit) that clashes with the vocal.

[@ShaunBarrett]

Automate the sounds that you want to hear to come up more when the vocal is not playing. Also you could try trackspacer on the the other sounds with the vocal as the side chain input, but be very gentle with it. It will make the vocal standout by only attenuating the freqs that are present in the vocal.

[@nrgskillmedia]

I'd say that analog equipments's electronic elements always introduce a bit of distortion that adds harmonics. Likely impossible to fully replicate in digital unless you overload the cpu/dsp.

[@saricubra2867]

I have such a beast of a CPU right now on my PC that i can push oversampling and other stuff for many plugins so far that i don't notice the difference between well made analog emulation and the real stuff.

[@dragonemortale9056]

I think empress has different Curves from a pultec. Also has less of the Dynamic reduction of the pultec. The pro q matches well but has no saturation.

[@chrishenperera]

i LOVE THE WARMTH OF EMPRESS

[@miquelmarti6537]

Freq curves aside, I usually hear a little bit of extra dynamic saturation from the analog units. Somerimes analog eq,s sound like if they would compress a bit, and viceversa.

[@zeroaverage]

The analog secret sauce might be called ghost compression.. Think loudness to dynamic range ratio.. Though I know it's over simplistic but can't fully explain it, a thought that might be in the ballpark is analog has the best achievable loudness to dynamic range ratio.. Some people physically have the ears for it.. some don't.. Those that don't will say digital sounds just as good as analog.

[@JohnDoe-qr4xu]

Depends what bit rate is used.

[@PhatLvis]

Appears to be a very subtle limiting-type effect on the signal through the Empress - presumably analog distortion - which is not present on the strictly Pro-Q track. This would seem to demonstrate the main difference/benefit of analog vs. digital. The curves are matched, but tone is not. Moreover, if one's goal/standard for a mix is the sound of great recordings from the pre-DAW era, then these types of subleties associated with analog gear are essential.

[@lilwombat]

i wasnt looking at the screen for this video i didnt want to bias one way. i could not tell when you were switching between the pro q one but i could with the uad pultec.

[@cortical1]

Don't you dare say something must be spiritual just because you don't understand it! Just kidding. Neuroscientist here. Love your channel. Cheers from California. 😉🧠☀️

[@justinhoffman1111]

empress sounds tighter in the lowend then the q3, esp the low lows

[@sebastiandior1315]

Wide q 5k boosts really seem to give the openness I had been looking for. I am not sure if the 5k thing is a response of converters or digital processing, but the subtle 5k wide q boosts really seem to compensate for me, on literally everything. Give it a shot.

[@GingerDrums]

This is often good with digital eqs that have high frequency cramping. Boosting lower high frequencies sounds better thx to less cramping. Pro Q of course does not cramp :)

[@MarkDLion]

I know as a fact that anything analogue can be simulated with enough calculation power. Clearly there are several variables hard to codify, morphing envelopes and different distortions at different frequencies and levels, so you can't just read the input and output signal. Insteand of trying to rationally replicate the sound, the easier solution could be useing a neural network and analyze thousands of hours and sounds creating a heuristic 4 dimensional pattern. But at the end of the day it is all about taste, people try to recreate hardware cause someone get used to it, but it doesn't mean they couldn't create something better.

[@everybodyhasoul5438]

Would love to see more videos like this! I am also really interested in the remaining differences between digital and analog. Curious - if this was a digital plugin review perhaps you would’ve investigated things going on beyond just eq and used multiple tools to try to recreate the plugin, would it not have been similarly fair to add some Saturn on the top end or something similar to try to recreate the difference you are hearing?

[@lockhartzzz]

Excellent comparison, thank you. Couldn't you get a little closer by adding a transformer saturator like True Iron before/after ProQ? This is the approach I'm starting to take, adding transformer saturation with plugins to try to get as close as possible to analog characteristics.

[@chrisyking]

The UAD Pultec is out on Spark. Could you do a comparison video?

[@saricubra2867]

You should try Fabfilter Volcano 3 that is a non-linear EQ unlike Fabfilter Pro Q which is clean. For me, that plugin is a game changer for subtle distortion more like a real Pultec, Pulsar Massive is amazing too, not as flexible as Volcano 3.

[@tomburden]

I have been putting off buying a 500 series compressor or EQ. They just sound so close to software counterparts. Do you have any favorite 500 series EQ or compressors?

[@TheRantingsofaMadman]

Much lower with the matching. I'd be interested in hearing them phase shifted to hear what's left. What exactly the analog signal is adding before matching. That's what we need in plug-ins emulating analog gear. That's what's missing. The saturation the warmth. Omg you're doing it! That's so much left!

[@TecDruid]

There is a difference in ANALOG.. i have cheap stuff but the major Thing that made my Mixes run is - stop laughing - mixing my Stereo with MONO Aux Signal. I realy love to run mono aux into my art Tube Mic Amp in warmth mode and to some 3 band EQing on it - mix it back and that makes every Track dope. Better punch depth and so on.. and to me its just the analog MIXING with mono that was a huge difference to a DAW MONO Aux Mixing - it sounds different and it feels different. The rest i use is DAW Plugins for mastering but the analog is always sounding more alive. Cannot describe it other way. Its more like the warmth distortion of the Tube or Mixer that i realy like. In special on the Kicks and highend Signals that makes it clear and sharper without beeing to "sharp" just more clearity unless overdoing it but... its all about more LISTEN to musik.. I listen more when i eq then in the DAW there its more watching what i do. That makes difference too. Thank you for your videos.

[@Tephomab]

In the endless debate of analog vs digital processing, I've always been of the opinion that analog gear is just more forgiving and easier to work with in that way. Of course there is also the coloration and character in analog gear, and it seems that most of those characteristics have been fairly accurately emulated at this point. The drawback of that emulation being that it takes extra steps to set up, adding a plugin, changing the settings, etc. Compared to simply routing the signal through a console, pre, or whatever other hardware, working with saturation plugins can be a lot more time consuming to achieve very similar results.

[@maddietourmaline46]

I have a nagging feeling one of the mystery factors is the difference in how analogue circuitry reacts to signals over time in the matter of milliseconds... I think some of the warmth of analogue comes from how it seems almost to hold onto the mids and add space and depth to transients. I've got no evidence of this, it's just a hunch that I can't quite shake. Of course there's probably more to the differences than what I think I'm hearing, too :)

[@арабскоесальто-с7и]

What is the name of the analyser that draws this multicoloured line?

[@RustOnTime]

Recently I tried something slightly similar. Got a tube preamp for my hifi (or midfi) in an attempt to warm things up slightly before my class D amplifier. Does the trick. However I do most of my listening from a mini pc with Equalizer APO that can also run VST's which got me thinking. Found a bunch of tube preamp simulators and it gets very, very close. (Similar smoother high's, more body and a sense of improved imaging perhaps due to added harmonics.) I guess the placebo effect of having actual analog components is hard to overcome though.

[@shapopmusic]

In my opinion, using the analog gear on masteing is best solution rather than use it on mixing. 1. It is much more affordable. Hire a mastering engineer won't cost a lot. 2. Make the tracks mre 3D and warmer. It is undeniable that there are many plugins they are sound feeling analog gear. (As long as it is done in the right way) It is very expensive to ask people to do analog mixing, so I think it is the most cost-effective way to use analog gear only during mastering.

[@randallsquires]

Dude, throw it in to Plugin doctor and match to the tenth of a dB. Easy enough, save as a preset, then ab/null test mate. That will also allow you to see the harmonic generation that "should" be going on with the pultec (tubes after all)..... and that that stuff does not exist within the Pro-Q. Take it a step further, and use Saturn to create the same overtone series/distortion characteristics of the Pultec. Also, they programmed in what a "real" pultec does. You automatically get a 1db or so shelf starting above 1khz with a pultec in bypass. Its a known thing.

[@ZsigmondKaraMusic]

The automatic matching could be useful to take your hardware "with you" on a laptop as a preset.

[@alexbuchok5612]

Could you please tell me what video you made where you sat in at an anolog mastering suite with a freind

[@adsertheblade]

Different doesn't mean worse, of course. You might have the same result if you compare ProQ to another plugin? Some fancy hardware emulation?

[@haraldklingsporn4087]

I tested Hardware against Plugins, several times, from Vitalizer, Pultec, Clariphonic, to simple Transformers... Hardware wins every time... so i bought the Hardware... Hardware sound musical... Plugins... sound like a 100 times Tape copy... where something lost, during the copy process ( loss of fine structures ). I use a lot of Plugins, cause they are easy to use... but some tools i have as hardware, to polish things...

[@kunfu8085]

So the thing to self-remind, is to just build big boost/cut bell with your EQ and you get it ;)